Once Upon a Time...

April 30, 2008

The Little Progressives that Could, Who Can't

My most recent essay about the Wright-Obama controversy is here. I've mentioned for several months that I plan to write at least two or three articles about what I consider to be the especially dangerous aspects of Obama's candidacy, and the very notable dangers that would be represented by an Obama presidency. I will get to those articles, finally, in the next week or two -- in large part, because these pieces will connect in many ways to other themes I will be developing (including in the series on contemporary tribalism, which I will also begin very soon, also finally).

I mention the following in connection with these matters. Several hours ago, I read this post on the Wright-Obama affair. "Betrayal"! Jesus F. Christ. It is one of the most deeply shocking and offensive posts I have read in the last few years. If you don't understand why I find it so shocking and offensive, I will be explaining that in a subsequent post (or two). Look for it (or them) on Friday or over the weekend. First, I need to put out the fire that reading that post started in my hair and that has now spread a bit through my apartment, and clean up the damage.

For the moment, I want to comment very briefly on this passage:

Reverend Wright called into question the entire premise of Obama's campaign, a campaign built on changing the very nature of politics, when he said, "he did what politicians do."

"Changing the very nature of politics." Wowee. Shazaam! If its "very nature" is changed, I kinda suppose it's, um, not "politics" any longer, right? What is it? Macrame? Sweet potato casserole? With melted marshmallows on top? Mmmmm. I mean, what?

Is this supposed to be serious? C'mon, I mean, serious? It reminds me of a similar kind of line peddled by Ezra Klein:

"...the media should, in its role as guardian of some minimal level of competency within the political process..."

About which, I could only write:

Is that one of the roles of "the media"? Really? I mean, honest to God?

Isn't Klein supposed to be a member of the "reality-based community"? Well, I suppose he never said it was this reality.

So, you know, he's covered there.

(That and other Klein goodies are handily collected in one place, for your edification and intellectual advancement.)

Ohhhhh-kay. I get it now. There's a seminar, right? Maybe given by Media Matters or some other enlightened, high-minded propaganda operation progressive think tank? Perhaps the seminar is called: "The Little Progressives that Could: How to Keep Your Sheeple Inspire Your Readers for the Great Fight!" And they hand out a little book called, natch, "The Little Progressives that Could: Simple Sayings to Light the Way." On the cover, a lovely picture of Obamarama is plastered on the front of the brave little engine.

Do Not Even Think of saying: "But, Arthur! The Little Engine succeeded!" It's a book. For children.Very young children. It has no applicability -- zero -- to complex issues of political systems, their transformation, and how (and whether) such transformations can be effected. Many learned people write books on these extremely challenging subjects -- very long, complicated, dense books. For adults. Take your Norman Vincent Fucking Peale, and you know what you can do with it.

I have to assume that the telcoms have been secretly monitoring members of congress and the Bush administration's communications and are blackmailing them. There is just no other adequate explanation for this immunity nonsense to keep coming back over and over again.

BLACKMAIL!!!! AGAIN!!!!!

Permit me to be immodest, and remind you that, in "Once More into the Land of the Blind," I wrote:

This is exactly what I observed about this perspective: "Some other factor must be making them do it, because they would refuse to behave in that manner if they could act in accord with their deepest convictions." And now we know the mysterious X factor that is making the Democrats act in the way they do: BLACKMAIL!

Examples of this kind are one of the reasons I sometimes say, again immodestly, "Yes, I Told You So."

With regard to Digby's observations: of course, there can't be any other "adequate" explanation. None at all -- except for all the explanations set forth in "Blinded by the Story," "It's Called the Ruling Class Because It Rules" (lots about the immunity issue in that), and in many other essays here. Never mind. I never wrote any of it.

But Digby, about this:

James Carville famously called Bill Richardson "Judas" recently for endorsing Senator Obama over Hillary Clinton. I would say Wright has a much greater claim to the name.

All I can say is: Lady, you have some fucking nerve. I'll be explaining that in detail in the next few days. (See here and here for a preview [and see John Nichols].) But if you want to go down that road, try these comparisons from Chris Floyd, which have the distinction of being just and accurate:

On Monday, Barack Obama humiliated and demeaned himself with yet another denunciation of his old friend and mentor, Jeremiah Wright. But there was no "national dialogue on race" this time around -- just cold, flat-out condemnation. Obama even declared that Wright was "not the same man I've known for 20 years" anymore -- echoing the newly crowned King Henry's blast at Falstaff: "I know thee not, old man; fall to thy prayers." There were even gospel echoes in Barack's blast:

And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, "Art not thou also one of his disciples?" He denied it, and said, "I am not." (John 18:25)

You should read all of Floyd's post, which is extraordinarily unusual in that it discusses in detail what Wright actually said. O dangerous scheme!

This primary from hell has been useful in certain respects. It has revealed a great deal about both remaining Democratic candidates, and it has shown those who are still capable of seeing and identifying what is in front of them much about the online progressive movement. It was indisputably clear much earlier (and I wrote about this fact even before the 2006 election), but now it is has been burned into the minds of some of us with a ferocious fire: the Democrats and most of the "leading" online progressives represent nothing even approaching the solution. They are precisely, ineradicably, unalterably the problem. Beyond this central, immovable fact, and in place of an understanding of history (by which I mean more than the time between elections, and more than even one or two decades) and an appreciation of political theory and reality, culture and the numerous and complicated ways in which a multitude of factors interact, we have empty slogans from children's books and shitty, fifth-rate melodrama. Awesome.

All of which is, of course, what I have been saying for quite a while, in different ways, in many, many essays. And I will have much more to say about all this in another day or two.

Those Clever, Dastardly Iranians! Bamboozling Us with Facts ... and Even (gasp!) Photographs!

Barbed wire and antiaircraft guns ring a maze of buildings in the Iranian desert that lie at the heart of the West's five-year standoff with Tehran over its program to enrich uranium.

It is a place of secrets that Iran loves to boast about, clouding the effort's real status and making Western analysts all the more eager for solid details and clues. Tehran insists that its plans are peaceful. But Washington and its allies see a looming threat.

The sprawling site, known as Natanz, made headlines recently because Iran is testing a new generation of centrifuges there that spin faster and, in theory, can more rapidly turn natural uranium into fuel for reactors or nuclear arms. The new machines are also meant to be more reliable than their forerunners, which often failed catastrophically.

On April 8, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited the desert site, and Iran released 48 photographs of the tour, providing the first significant look inside the atomic riddle.

"They're remarkable," Jeffrey G. Lewis, an arms control specialist at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit research group in Washington, said of the photographs. "We're learning things."

Most important, the pictures give the first public glimpse of the new centrifuge, known as the IR-2, for Iranian second generation. There were no captions with the photographs, so nuclear analysts around the globe are scrutinizing the visual evidence to size up the new machine, its probable efficiency and its readiness for the tough job of uranium enrichment. They see the photos as an intelligence boon.

"This is intel to die for," Andreas Persbo, an analyst in London at the Verification Research, Training and Information Center, a private group that promotes arms control, said in a comment on the blog site Arms Control Wonk.

"An intelligence boon"! "Intel to die for"! And no one had to die! Iran just ... released the photographs!

But Iran didn't provide ... captions!

Who knew such evil lurked in the hearts of those endlessly scheming Iranians! It is ghastly! Apalling!! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

Oh, yes, we are:

Of the 48 photographs Iran released, Western analysts gave special scrutiny to one showing Mr. Ahmadinejad and his entourage viewing a disassembled IR-2, its guts arrayed on a table. Clearly visible are its casing, inner rotor, motor and several other critical parts.

Arms Control Wonk, which Dr. Lewis of the New America Foundation runs, led a discussion of the photo. Most comments focused on parts. But Geoffrey E. Forden, an arms expert at M.I.T., noted that the table also held an Iranian flag. [!!!!!]

"Indigenous manufacturing of sophisticated components is something to be very proud of," he wrote. "And showing them with an Iranian flag is a very good way of graphically proclaiming it."

One surprise of the tour was the presence of Iran's defense minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar. His attendance struck some analysts as odd given Iran's claim that the desert labors are entirely peaceful in nature. In one picture, Mr. Najjar, smiling widely, appears to lead the presidential retinue.

"The presence of Iran's defense minister"! In a photograph that Iran voluntarily released! Just one of 48 photographs! That Iran voluntarily released!

It is obvious to anyone, unless you hate America to the marrow of your bones and fervently hope that all of the United States goes up in a mushroom cloud in the immediate future, that the defense minister would only be there if Iran is going to have nuclear weapons tomorrow. And tomorrow -- maybe later today, you can never be sure with such deeply malevolent people -- WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

The story makes it painfully obvious that maybe -- if Iran actually intends to manufacture nuclear weapons -- if Iran is able to successfully conquer the numerous and significant technical problems that still lie ahead -- if a number of other factors all work out in the required way -- then, if Iran actually wanted to have nuclear weapons, maybe Iran would have them sometime between 2010 and 2015. Of course: "Iran insists it wants to make only reactor fuel for producing electricity."

I tell you, Iran's "secret" plant and its "secret" plans TO KILL US ALL remind me of my best friend in high school. She kept "secrets" the same exact way. Blabbermouth. Yeah, you, Ellen! Pfaugh.

But you must always remember to be afraid, very, very afraid, as the Times helpfully reminds us at the end of the story:

Some analysts see the centrifuges, despite the disclosures of the presidential tour, as a continuing enigma.

Ultimately, Tehran could use them for good or ill, for lighting cities or destroying them. Only time, they say, is likely to reveal Iran's true intentions.

Only time will tell! DA DUH DUMMMMMM!!!!

Has Iran invaded and occupied any of its neighbors? Nope. Has Iran traveled halfway around the world to invade another country? No way. Has Iran's criminal invasion and endless occupation of a country that never threatened it unleashed a series of events that have led to the slaughter of more than a million innocent people, and made four million additional people refugees? No, sir. Does Iran keep threatening the United States by saying that "all options are on the table"? Does Iran threaten to attack the United States because the U.S. actually has a huge nuclear arsenal?

A huge nuclear arsenal that, by the way, the U.S. and all its leading politicians keep threatening to unleash on Iran -- keeping in mind that all of this happens as the signs continue to mount that a U.S. attack on Iran becomes more certain and more imminent by the day?

No.

The United States government and its major functionaries keep threatening to entirely destroy Iran -- which has done precisely nothing of a threatening nature. Nothing.

But Iran releases photographs. 48 photographs.

Evil, I say! EVIL!

They must be stopped! NOW!!!!!

P.S. And if -- if Iran intended to acquire nuclear weapons -- then I say, as I have said before...

April 29, 2008

Not So By the Way...

It is 1939 all over again. The world waits helplessly for the next act of naked aggression by rogue states. Only this time the rogue states are not the Third Reich and Fascist Italy. They are the United States and Israel.

I recently made one last, desperate plea for action to try to stop this descent into genocidal, history-changing insanity. With the exception of a handful of people, no one even noticed.

Ooooooooooo, Barack! Ohhhhhhhhhhh, Hillary! Grrrrrrrrrr, Jeremiah Wright! Maybe that "unity" crap that Obama spews endlessly is working after all. Everyone loathes Wright, except for a few America-hating, lunatic, over the top idiots like me. You all enjoy your Two Weeks Hate now. Hell, make it two months. Oh, you already have, haven't you? And some say the days of witch burning are over. Good one!

Morons. Sorry. Make that fucking morons.

One last point about the attack on Iran that will very likely come before Bush leaves office, and probably sometime this summer at the latest, a point that no one discusses: in the unfolding, bloody chaos following such an attack, chaos that will extend through the fall and long after, just exactly who do you think will be most helped by the hysteria that will engulf us, fueled by the always helpful mainstream media that will faithfully regurgitate and amplify the government propaganda? McCain -- or the Democratic presidential candidate, whether it be Obama or Clinton? If you think the Democrat will be helped the most, I suggest you do your best to wake up from that coma. It must restrict your range of action considerably. It's already paralyzed your ability to think entirely.

Messiahs Just Aren't What They Used to Be

Once upon a time (I do like that phrase), a genuinely revolutionary messiah challenged every aspect of the beliefs and practices of the ruling elites of his time, even when that challenge ensured his own death. Alas. In 21st century America, many of those in our intellectual class (I use the words "intellectual" and "class" with a degree of carelessness meriting severe and cruel punishment) enthusiastically make themselves into laughingstocks by wildly applauding the cheapest, emptiest, most obviously manipulative of charlatans.

I have pointed this out for over a year. One of my first posts on the subject of The Divine Obama was this one. Of course, that was of zero interest to the major "progressive" bloggers. It interfered with their "narrative," doncha know. Most of those privileged, comparatively affluent, comfortable, protected fat asses didn't care all that much (if at all) when faggot insults were hurled by The Divine One at The Pretty One. (I use the phrase "fat asses" to denote an almost complete lack of intellectual seriousness, discipline and depth, not to describe any physical attribute. Perish the look-ist thought!) After all, most of these fat asses and all of their major Democratic candidates actually do think that faggots are freaks. They'll lie about it, as do all major politicians, but their willingness to disregard the plain meaning of Obama's vacuous and not infrequently vicious machinations reveals that lying comes as naturally to them as breathing.

Obama is so intelligent! So uplifting! So extraordinary! A once in a generation (or two or three) kind of political leader! Such commentators are beyond pathetic, and beneath contempt. Now -- now, after a close, intimate relationship with Jeremiah Wright over a period of a few decades -- now Obama realizes what Wright actually thinks. Because Obama is running for president, he denounces his "former pastor." (He should have saved himself some time, and followed my advice on this point from over a month ago.)

Wright has said nothing new. He's repeated what he said many times before. The only difference is that Obama's campaign is flailing. The heat got to be too much. So now Obama finally understands what Wright thinks, and he denounces it. This means one of two things: Obama is one of the stupidest people in America (and that would be an achievement of some note), or he is a liar of the first order. It's probably a combination of both, with a huge dose of pathetically desperate and obvious strategizing thrown in.

It should be emphasized that, on the points of greatest significance, what Wright has said and continues to say is true. More than that, it is critically important. (I specifically exempt from this judgment Wright's remarks to the NAACP about "right-brain, left-brain" issues. I am unable to watch that speech, since I don't have television and only have a dialup internet connection, and I've been unable to find a transcript. But from the reports I've seen, those particular comments appear to be profoundly, dangerously wrong. But, even though I am aware of no evidence at all to support Wright's views about a government "conspiracy" with regard to AIDS, an appreciation of the relevant history makes even those comments understandable, as I have discussed.)

Of course, no one who buys into the mythology of American exceptionalism will consider the possibility that critical parts of what Wright thinks are true. As I wrote in "Obama's Whitewash":

Obama speaks of "views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike." This is a lie: Wright's views express the truth of our history, and of our present. No, it is not all of the truth, but it is an absolutely essential and major part of the truth. It is the part of the truth that our fictionalized, mythologized history denies, the truth that many Americans will not permit themselves to understand or acknowledge. You are profoundly wrong if the truth "offends" you. If you remain determined to cling to the lies that sustain you, you may certainly make that choice. But that does not make it right, or true.

Obama speaks of "a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic..." But white racism has been endemic to America's history, and its effects are still painfully visible in most aspects of American life today. Indeed, a good portion of Obama's speech itself details the effects of that "endemic" white racism. Wright does not "elevate what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America" -- he demands acknowledgment of the part of our history drowned by the propaganda that inundates us every day. For those who remain wedded to the mythologized America, such acknowledgment cannot be tolerated. Truth must be destroyed.

Obama states: "I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy." What Obama has "condemned, in unequivocal terms" is the truth -- the truth that is forbidden by the fictions that feed the myth of American exceptionalism. Obama has fully embraced the lies at the heart of mythologized America -- an embrace that is underscored by his inclusion of this phrase: "a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam." In this manner, Obama confirms that he will continue our policy of global interventionism including our endless interventions in the Middle East, which have been unceasing ever since World War I. Obama embraces all the lies that support that policy, and he will challenge none of them. (See "Songs of Death" for many more details concerning Obama's embrace of this murderous policy.)

Almost every politician lies, and most politicians lie repeatedly. Yet in one sense, Obama's speech is exceptional, rare and unique -- but not for any of the reasons offered by Obama's uncritical, mindless adulators. It is exceptional for this reason: it is rare that a candidate will announce in such stark, comprehensive terms that he will lie about every fact of moment, about every aspect of our history that affects the crises of today and that has led to them, about everything that might challenge the mythological view of America. But that is what Obama achieved with this speech. It may be a remarkable achievement -- a remarkable and detestable one, and one that promises endless destruction in the future, both here and abroad.

Most people completely failed to grasp the breadth of Obama's commitment to America's mythologized history in his "nuanced," "historical" speech on race, or his unbreached determination to lie about anything and everything. They were -- and are -- incapable of understanding this issue for the simple reason that they, too, embrace this mythology. If they are deprived of their belief in America's, and their own, claim to being "unique" and "special" in all of history, they will die psychologically. Our mythologized history has become a crucial part of their own identities. Obama's condemnation of Wright today amounts to an emphatic postscript to his earlier speech: "I meant it. I will lie to you about anything you want. I will lie about everything."

For this is where we are in the United States, nearing the end of the Year of Our Lord 2007: the truth is not merely unpleasant, an uninvited guest who makes conversation difficult and awkward. Truth is the enemy; truth is to be destroyed. To attempt to speak the truth on any subject of importance requires a deep reserve of determination, for to speak the truth requires that one first sweep away an infinite number of rationalizations, false alternatives, and numerous other failures of logic and the most rudimentary forms of thought -- as well as the endless lies. On that single occasion in a thousand or a million when a person overcomes these barriers and speaks the truth, he or she discovers an additional, terrible truth: almost no one wants to hear it. This is how we live today: lies are the staple of our diet. Without them, we would die, certainly in psychological terms.

This is politics as it is practiced in the United States now. It is the result of political developments over more than a century -- see "Blinded by the Story," "It's Called the Ruling Class Because It Rules," the entire "Dominion Over the World" series as well as the series entitled, "A Nation on the Edge of the Final Descent," and numerous other essays here for the details. This state of affairs will not be miraculously transformed by any single individual, no matter how conscientiously and irreparably you damage your brain and destroy your capacity for coherent thought, and regardless of how desperately you search for a savior. If this reality is to be altered, a searching, comprehensive reevaluation of the nature and role of government would be required, and government's increasingly oppressive, intrusive presence in our lives would have to be systematically rolled back. Such an effort would take decades, at least. It is much more likely that a major realignment will be forcibly brought about by widening war, and/or significant economic weakening or collapse. However it happens, such a transformation over time will represent great, heartbreaking hardship for a huge number of innocent individuals. That's the hopeful outlook.

The authoritarian-corporatist system of government in the United States is thoroughly corrupt. It is virtually impossible to reform it "from within," and history offers not a single example of such a fundamental alteration. Those who delude themselves that it is possible reveal a deplorable ignorance of the past and its many lessons, as well as an inability to understand cultural-political developments over a period of more than a year or two. But most people who speak of "reform" aren't actually interested in reform in any fundamental way. Their only concern is acquiring control of the levers of power for themselves and for their political gang. Keep this principle in mind:

Any individual who rises to the national political level is, of necessity and by definition, committed to the authoritarian-corporatist state. The current system will not allow anyone to be elected from either of the two major parties who is determined to dismantle even one part of that system.

I set forth that principle in a post with a title that some might consider rude, but which is entirely accurate: "Most of You Will Eat Shit Until the Day You Die." This much is certain: with only a few exceptions and never with regard to a person in a position of great authority, anyone who devotes his life, or a significant portion of it, to acquiring power in our corrupt political system is a manipulative, detestable, lying son of a bitch. Yes, that includes many (probably most) commentators and bloggers of any prominence, of any and every political persuasion.

Tell yourselves and everyone else it's not true. That will be a lie, too. But then, you're used to lying. It's like breathing.

April 10, 2008

Move Directly to Sublime

For those of you who wish to focus on something other than the depressingly awful, ultimately meaningless spectacle of our electoral politics or the monstrously homicidal realities of United States foreign policy, listen to this wonderful program about Richard Tauber, and his life and recorded legacy. Tauber appears on almost every list of the twentieth century's greatest tenors, usually at or near the very top.

The entire program is eminently worth listening to. For an extraordinary treat, listen to the duet with Lotte Lehmann from Korngold's Die tote Stadt, beginning at about 9:30. Sublime is perhaps the best word to describe it.

The last aria John Cargher plays on his Tauber program is the final recording Tauber made, Tamino's aria from Mozart's Magic Flute. It is astonishingly beautiful in every respect, and remarkable for a man in his mid-fifties. Tauber gave his final live performance, as Don Ottavio in Don Giovanni, with his beloved Vienna State Opera when the company visited London in the fall of 1947. Elizabeth Schwarzkopf was in that performance and said about it: "None of us had ever been on a stage with a singer of the caliber of Richard Tauber." Tauber died just three months later at the age of 56, of lung cancer. As Cargher notes, he had sung that last performance with only one lung.

Now, I'm going to listen to that Korngold duet again, for the tenth or eleventh time since I heard it again last evening for the first time in many years.

April 06, 2008

Brief Update

I'll keep this short. If I go into much detail, I'll become more of a wreck than I already am.

Many thanks to all the very kind people who responded to this plea. Rent and minimal living expenses are taken care of for this month, and I have enough to get some basic medical attention for Fidele. She's not in very good shape, although the worst appears to still be some time off. We'll have to see how things go from day to day, and week to week. Just an unhappy time, made worse by the fact that my own poor health often makes it very difficult for me to do the simplest of things, like cleaning up the messes that sometimes accompany old age for our companions. All very exhausting emotionally and physically, for both Fidele and me now. Thankfully, the other two cats are fine and a source of constant joy.

So, my mind has been elsewhere the last week, and I've found it impossible to focus on writing. I hope to get back to it in another few days. But I wanted to let you know what's going on, especially those of you who have been so thoughtful and generous.

This is staggeringly impressive shit. I would never have dared to dream this big. I have beautiful, wonderful dreams, but even when I'm imagining how the world might be if a critical number of people made very different choices, I have limits, know what I mean?

Democrats are now in hell. Hell without limits. This is so great. I might decide to believe in God after all.

Make my dream come true. Please, please, oh, please. Keep this up for another few months, we'll find some way to make McCain have a complete schizo breakdown in public, and then...

Okay, one more thing. My very favorite part of Marsh's racist-elitist-bowling contribution toward paradise is when she notes this recent declaration from The Messiah -- you know, The Messiah Who's Going to Change Everything,...except, maybe, eh, not so much:

Barack Obama promised that his foreign policy would be a return to what he says was the realist approach practiced by George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. "My foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of in some ways Ronald Reagan," he said Friday.

Now, see, this is what I love about the two camps of today's Democrats. On the one hand, the Taylor Marsh racist-elitist-bowling camp is not at all satisfied with this -- because it doesn't go far enough! Marsh introduces that little excerpt with this line: "It also takes more than words to convince us..." Just words, girly man! Not enough!

And after the excerpt, she sez:

That's particularly true when the actions and evidence of demonstrated toughness are missing.

Casting aspersions on blue collar men and women who are cautious on national security by calling them racist, especially when it's the progressives stuck neck deep in 1950s sexism, is why the Democratic party keeps losing presidential elections.

On the other hand -- you know, the hand with all those progressive-y fingers sticking out of it -- what to do with Obama's affirmation of the glories of "the traditional realistic policy" of George I, JFK and Reagan?! I briefly scanned several of the big liberal-y, progressive-y blogs and maybe I missed the detailed discussions of what this might mean about The Messiah Who's Going to Change Everything, but...they don't seem to be talking about this! At all! Wotta surprise!

Eminently understandable, though. What are they going to say? "Oh, he's just saying that because he has to, to get elected! He doesn't actually mean it." So he's a big, fat, typical politician? The Lying Messiah? Or perhaps, just perhaps, he does mean it? But ... but ... but ... what would that mean? Obama the Magnificent will be fully committed to continuing the decades-long, bipartisan foreign policy of aggressive interventionism by any and all necessary means, so as to guarantee the consolidation and continuation of American global hegemony?

So, yes, ignoring it is your best bet if you're a progressive-y finger on that other hand.

Please, please do carry on with all the hyperventilating, oh-so-serious flim-flammery. This is almost better than...never mind. But it's almost better than that. I never, ever thought I'd say that about anything.